Mearls talks about how he hates resistances

[catsclaw227]

There's an interesting blog entry from Mike Mearls about his dislike for resistances. He talks about some other mechanics he was considering, but the resistances won out.

The Keep on the Gaming Lands: I Hate Resistances

Interesting look into 4e development...

EDIT: And, also worth noting, is a deeper look at Mearls ideas from the guys at One Bad Egg.

 

[avin]

Meh, I disagree with almost anything Mearls says... at least until he releases 4E Modrons, of course.

 

[Oni]

Ugh, I really dislike his suggestions on replacing resistance. You go from caster X being screwed over to caster X screwing over the whole party, sounds like it would make the situation even worse than before.

IMO there should be some reward for thematic focus, like a feat that lets you overcome 1 point of resistance for each power of a like energy type you know. For instance if you know 3 fire based powers, you ignore 3 points of fire resistance on your attacks.

 

[Jack99]

I think the idea has merits, and would make for a much more dynamic combat. I also think that it would slow down the game more.

Maybe it would be interesting exploring for "special" monsters, on a case by case basis.

 

[Irda Ranger]

His suggestion wouldn't fix the problem of "wizard from the north" not learning ice magic, as those spells could give his enemies AC bonuses. Still better off with Fireball.

I like Oni's suggestion. S'mon's too (see the comments on the blog).

 

[Belphanior]

I can sort of see the point about wanting to play an ice-mage in an ice-campaign, but such a specific campaign should come up with its own rules on energy types anyway. I don't see why vanilla D&D should have to incorporate all those permutations.

The idea of strengthening monsters through your attacks is horrible. Your entire party will hate you for giving the dragon its breathweapon back, making it an even stronger deterrent. Under the current system you can just throw your daily at the dragon and accept you'll do 10 points of damage less. At least that makes you inefficient, not suicidal.

The idea that a fire elemental can walk through magma but is hurt if you poke it three times with a torch is also fascinatingly bizarre.

That said, some of these ideas are still cool and can be recycled somewhere. Most frost knights should just crumble away a bit from icy blasts, but I can totally see a special version that recharges an encounter power or draws strength from it.

Such monsters would have to come with a special warning though. Depending on the party makeup they are either highly lethal, or half their powers are meaningless. A kind of design 4e so far doesn't want to promote, beyond undead and radiant/necrotic.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the guy at One Bad Eggs suggestion about making vulnerability have seperate effects to just more damage. We already have a theme where cold slows, fire has ongoing damage, etc etc. I think adding these effects into vulnerabilities would help to seperate the elements in an interesting way.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Interesting. Coincidentally, a couple of weeks ago, my personal discovery was that vulnerabilities are fitting 4E's "yes" mindset better than resistances.

But Mearls idea of triggers and the vulnerability extension from One Bad Egg are much, much better. I really think that 4E - though less than 3E - wasted an opportunity in underusing keywords a lot , there are a few things that could have been implemented beautifully with a more generous use of keywords and subsequent interactions.

Cheers, LT.

 

[The Ghost]

From a theoretical standpoint I think his ideas are intriguing and could possibly lead to more exciting and dynamic combats. However, there are two practical arguments that need to be overcome.

First, resistances are a pretty simple concept to understand. They are easy enough to re-skin. And they are simple enough to narrate. I can easily say this creature has a mild resistance to fire and the players immediately know what that means and can prepare accordingly. If, on the other hand, I say this creature is "Magma Born" while another is "Glacier Forged" and yet another is "Wind Willed", will those abilities be similar enough for the players to understand and prepare accordingly or does it add a needless layer of confusion on the game?

Second, the retributive abilities cannot be too overpowering - but that may lead to them being less interesting. For example, a fire mage going against a creature with a resistance may not be very effectual and have to resort to non-magical actions. A fire mage going against a creature with a retributive ability may be very effective but at the cost of the fighter up front taking more hits. Which is more interesting? I am not sure.

 

[Akaiku]

You could mix up how resistances work a bit by making it so enemies ignore under X amount of damage from appropriate source, but take full damage if it's over X. That way, a wizard or whatever can try to overpower the resist, which comes up somewhat often with elemental magic in stories.